country support program, istanbul, april 2010 undp-gef portfolio in biodiversity in europe and cis...

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010

UNDP-GEF PORTFOLIO IN BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE AND

CIS

© 2010 UNDP. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.Proprietary and Confidential. Not For Distribution Without Prior Written Permission.

Maxim Vergeichik, Regional Technical Adviser, Biodiversity


UNDP mandate and services

Coordination of the UN system at the country level:

Technical assistance for human development: Policy dialogue and advocacy Project development and implementation support Fund mobilization and fiduciary management Knowledge management and sharing

As GEF implementing agency: Mainstreaming UN convention matters into national economies,

development strategies, policies and institutions Combine GEF with other sources of environmental finance to attract

investment in low carbon, climate resilient and ecosystem friendly development pathways.


121 projects in 24 countries

Chemicals; 4

Climate Change; 43

International Waters; 7 Land Degradation;

16Biodiversity; 51

UNDP-GEF portfolio under implementation


ECIS portfolio by GEF focal area

$108

$14

$56

$16 $18$30

$144

$70

$34

$316

$10

$100

$1 000

Biodiversity Chemicals Climate Change InternationalWaters

LandDegradation

Focal area

US

$ m

illio

n

GEF funding $mil Co-financing $mil


UNDP signature programs in biodiversity

OBJECTIVE: To manage biodiversity so as to sustain the delivery of the ecosystem

goods and services on which human development depends

Unleashing the economic potential of protected areas so that they are providing ecosystem services, are climate resilient

and sustainably financed (GEF, ICI)

Mainstreaming biodiversity into productive sectors and landscape to

ensure that production processes maintain essential ecosystem functions

5

Terrestrial protected areas National level: 6

Steppe: 4 Wetlands: 8

Forests: 6Mountains: 4

Agrobiodiversity: 1

Protected area finance:

7 projects

Sectors:

Agriculture: 6Fisheries: 1

Oil and Gas: 2Banking: 1

Landscapes:

National land-use planningMunicipalities

2 projects

Marine protected

areas3 projects


Split between the 2 signature programs

39 $92

$266

12$16 $50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

US

$ m

illio

n a

nd

nu

mb

er o

f p

roje

cts

Protected Areas Mainstreaming in production sectors

Signature programme

Number of projects GEF funding $mil Co-financing $mil


Projects by country

1

10

100

Arm

en

ia

Be

laru

s

BiH

Bu

lga

ria

Cro

atia

Ge

org

ia

Glo

ba

l

Hu

ng

ary

Ka

zakh

sta

n

Kyr

gyz

sta

n

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Ma

ced

on

ia

Mo

ldo

va

Mo

nte

ne

gro

Ro

ma

nia

Ru

ssia

Slo

vaki

a

Ta

jikis

tan

Tu

rke

y

Tu

rkm

en

ista

n

Ukr

ain

e

Uzb

eki

sta

n

US

$ m

illi

on

GEF funding Cofinancing


Results summary

Protected area projects: 19 new PAs established, totaling 2.6 million hectares 85 PAs in the process of being established, totaling 0.81 million

hectares 126 existing PAs strengthened, totaling 9.7 million hectares 9.1 million hectares in 10 different Global 200 Ecoregions

Mainstreaming projects: 2 areas set outside of economic activities in recognition of biodiversity

values covering approximately 1 million ha in land and water surface 10.25 million hectares of productive landscape within 9 Global 200

Ecoregions and 2 CI Hotspots have been put under biodiversity-compliant economic use regimes within seven projects


PA program impacts (1):Increased ecosystem resilience

New / larger PAs and corridors Russia, Kazakhstan Altai-Sayan forests: 0.5 million ha of new

PAs, cross border surveillance, protection, fire monitoring Russia Taimyr : 100,000 ha of tundra and boreal forest added

under protection


PA program impacts (2): Sustainable PA financing means effective conservation

Romania Carpathian forests: tourism and sawdust briquetting companies revenue-sharing with parks

Macedonia: prerequisites for PES included in the Law on Protected Areas.


PA program impacts (3): Incentives for alternative local development at PAs

Alternatives to destructive practices (e.g. fire-wood use) Uzbekistan Tugai Forest: gasification schemes supported to

cater for 60 households = annual cut reduction by 360 cubic meters = saving 144 ha of virgin forests over 10 years

Romania Carpathians: Sawdust briquetting Uzbekistan: straw-bale houses as an alternative to wood

Community forests Uzbekistan: community forests established


PA program impacts (4): Support to fire-prevention capacities in carbon rich

boreal forests (Russia, Kazakhstan)

Are fires always bad for biodiversity? More studies in Russia Komi: fire management vs. fire

prevention


BD mainstreaming impacts (1): Putting agrobiodiversity under protection

Georgia: 189 households cultivating land-races, over 80% of these households are reporting higher pulse diversity on-farm

Kazakhstan: 391,000 ha being set aside to manage wild fruit diversity


BD mainstreaming impacts (2): supporting wise use of grasslands

Bulgaria: 3 mobile teams helping farmers to implement agrienvironmental measures

Slovakia: 95.4 ha of rich fen mires have undergone active restoration, upon which the groundwater table stabilized at 80% of the restored sites.

Czech Republic: 570 ha of formerly degraded land converted into biodiversity-rich grasslands


BD mainstreaming impacts (2): successful peatland restoration pilots

Belarus: 28,000 ha rewetted; reduced annual emission of CO2 by 280,000 tons; presence of wetland plant associations up by 58-96%

Lithuania: wetland management plans were implemented at 785 ha of raised bogs


Looking into GEF-5

Managing ecosystems to enhance their resilience and improve their climate change mitigation and adaptation potential


THANK YOU

country support program, istanbul, april 2010 undp-gef portfolio in biodiversity in europe and cis...

Documents